President Bush and his Sharpie

On 14 Nov 2004 09:48:13 GMT, so what typed:

!
Am I the only one who doesn't care dogfarts about Bush's pen?

No. And yes, he is as dumb as a doorknob!
--
Cordially,

Sonam Dasara
11/14/2004 12:44:18 PM
dovekeeper+at+electric-ink+dot+com

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 04:53:53 GMT, Michael typed:

Those scores are not authorized by either Bush or Kerry. Give
me a break.

Actually, if you read the text they're not even "verified".

--
Cordially,

Sonam Dasara
11/14/2004 12:53:36 PM
dovekeeper+at+electric-ink+dot+com

"so what" wrote in message
...
Am I the only one who doesn't care dogfarts about Bush's pen?


satrap
curious

nope - you don't stand alone.

Anybody who wins two terms cannot be as stupid as a box of hammers!
If that was the case, then you could say that more than 51% of the
people are stupid as a box of hammers and you can go figure it out why
51% of the people voted for George W. Bush if they are still stupid as
a box of hammers!

Actually, 60% of the people believed that Iraq was involved in 9/11,
that there were Iraqis amongst the hijackers, and that Iraq had been
actively supporting terrorist organizations like al Queda. This is
despite the fact that the media and every intelligence agency in
America actively stated those were untrue. That's a good working
definition of stupid.

It takes a high degree of intelligence and much hard work to win over
more than 51% of the people to be reelected for a second term as not
too many people get that honor. Anybody who is stupid as a box of
hammers would not have gotten elected for the second term and the
first term four years ago.

Nonsense. It takes a lot of hard work, money, and a willingness to
lie through your teeth to win an election. Bush was not the brains
behind his campaign. Karl Rove was. Richard Nixon won the honor of a
second term, despite being an obviously unscrupulous man. Winning
elections has utterly nothing to do with being smarter or having a
more moral character.

If George W is still stupid as a box of hammers, then what do we call
Kerry and Al Gore who could have beaten Bush in both elections? Do we
call them sore losers and if this is the case for such
characterization, then why don't all the liberals call both men sore
losers?

Actually, Al Gore beat Bush by 800,000 popular votes. The electoral
college and the Supreme Court disenfranchised the majority opinion.

Characterizing people with unnecessary invectives has no place in our
society as if it is not alright to call a black person a ******, then
why is it alright to call the President of the United States stupid as
a box of hammers?

Actually I agree. We have been wrongfully insulting hammers here.

Has anybody else noticed that that we haven't heard from the guy who
started this thread supposedly hoping it wouldn't get political?
I wonder why.

Have you smelled those things? I use Sharpies in my tool box to mark
and label certain materials, but I get the cap back on quickly,
especially if I am using a power saw. Any extensive writing with one
of those things would, uh, lets say it could save you a lot of money
on proscribed drugs. I certainly wouldn't like the thought of
comments I wrote under the influence of those fumes being preserved in
a library.

And, yes, there is also a fountain pen and a Rhodia pad in the
toolbox, too.



(John) wrote in message . com...
I recall reading in more than one place that the President often uses
a Sharpie to make notes or even edit documents. Best that I can
figure is the guy a) likes felt tips (I understand the official pen
and bill signer is a Cross Townsend Selectip Felt) and b) the
permanent ink is good for archives.

"Charles Perry" wrote in message ...

"Michael" wrote in message
...

"Charles Perry" wrote in message
...

"Michael" wrote in message
news
"Mark Atwood" wrote in message ...
"Michael" writes:

Can't. He uses a Sharpie because he can't find his crayons.

I just knew some asshat was going to resurrect that lame joke.

W's SATs and armed forces aptitude test scores have been published.
As were Kerry's. W scored higher. What did *you* score?

I'll have to ask for a citation on that one.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionar...%20SAT%20score
Charles

Those scores are not authorized by either Bush or Kerry. Give
me a break.

M.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...4-074349-3947r

Now you find a credible reference to Kerry's SAT.

Charles

I understand it hasn't been released officially.

M.

"Michael" writes:

"Charles Perry" wrote in message
...

"Michael" wrote in message
...

"Charles Perry" wrote in message
...

"Michael" wrote in message
news
"Mark Atwood" wrote in message
. ..
"Michael" writes:

Can't. He uses a Sharpie because he can't find his crayons.

I just knew some asshat was going to resurrect that lame joke.

W's SATs and armed forces aptitude test scores have been
published. As were Kerry's. W scored higher. What did *you*
score?

In my case, 640 Math/740 Verbal/1380 composite on the SAT in 1977,
composite score of 32 on the ACT. What can I say, I enjoy taking
tests. I was actually ticked off at my SAT scores and thought I
should have done better.

Of course, W's and Kerry's scores appear to be unconfirmed and we
don't know how accurate they are. I would say that W's scores as
published should't have gotten him into Yale and Harvard, nor Kerry's
either.

http://www.time.com/time/education/p...101063,00.html

How many of these do you get correct? I got 7/8 correct, screwing up
on the simplest one (the coin toss). Doh.

Now, this is a silly conversation, quite frankly. Highly intelligent
people can be crappy leaders, people of average intelligence can be
very effective leaders, and all permutation in between are possible.
It's entirely possible that high-level intelligence can handicap a
leader, as he or she will tend to see the complexities and nuances
that a less intelligent leader will not; hence the less intelligent
leader comes to a decision more easily. It may not be the *right*
decision, but it will be *a* decision. And finally, wisdom and
intelligence are not the same thing.

One of the articles stated that Bush is about average for a President
in terms of intelligence. I'd have to concur. The bar isn't all that
high in intellectual terms, and many voters instinctively distrust
people who seem much more intelligent than themselves. Bush seems to
be on par with Reagan and less bright than GHWB, I'd say; less
intelligent than either Clinton or Carter, and probably less so than
Ford. I don't remember Nixon clearly enough to compare, except that
Nixon seemed pretty whacked during the time he was in office. I never
understood how he managed to get elected for any office- he must have
been more appealing to most people than he was to me. On a gut level,
I find GWB every bit as repellent as Nixon, perhaps even more so.
Nixon was something of a tragic character, whereas Bush just seems
deficient in character.

"Tim McNamara" wrote in message
...

[snip]


One of the articles stated that Bush is about average for a President
in terms of intelligence. I'd have to concur. The bar isn't all that
high in intellectual terms, and many voters instinctively distrust
people who seem much more intelligent than themselves. Bush seems to
be on par with Reagan and less bright than GHWB, I'd say; less
intelligent than either Clinton or Carter, and probably less so than
Ford. I don't remember Nixon clearly enough to compare, except that
Nixon seemed pretty whacked during the time he was in office. I never
understood how he managed to get elected for any office- he must have
been more appealing to most people than he was to me. On a gut level,
I find GWB every bit as repellent as Nixon, perhaps even more so.
Nixon was something of a tragic character, whereas Bush just seems
deficient in character.

Okay, I can't help dipping in. Contrary to what many people think, Nixon was
highly intelligent. In his Presidential debate with Kennedy, polls found out
that folks who listened to the radio and heard the arguments taught that
Nixon had won. But polls for television viewers said they believed Kennedy
had won. A detailed analysis later revealed that it was Kennedy's good
looks, composure and poise carried the day for him. So, can we say that
television viewers are stupid and less intelligent than radio listeners?

--
Best regards,
T-H Lim
(aka Free Citizen)
Fountain Pen Network
A pen site run by the Pen Community
http://pagesperso.laposte.net/fpnet
Short Domain Name: fpforum.tk

"Free Citizen" writes:
Nixon had won. But polls for television viewers said they believed Kennedy
had won. A detailed analysis later revealed that it was Kennedy's good
looks, composure and poise carried the day for him. So, can we say that
television viewers are stupid and less intelligent than radio listeners?

Which is why I never watched televised "debates" or watch the SotU
address "live" on teevee, and instead read the transcripts afterwards.

--
Mark Atwood | When you do things right, people won't be sure
| you've done anything at all.
http://www.pobox.com/~mra | http://www.livejournal.com/users/fallenpegasus